Modalities to Exploit the Estates Owned by Strehaia Monastery∗
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
MODALITIES TO EXPLOIT THE ESTATES OWNED BY STREHAIA MONASTERY∗ Ileana CIOAREC∗∗ Abstract: A monastery from the region of Oltenia, founded by the family Craiovescu, who embellished and endowed it with estates, the monastery of Strehaia, represents an important Romanian religious and cultural objective. Since its construction, it received numerous estates from its founders. To these donations, there were also added the buying of other estates, done by the Father Superiors of the monastery, along the time. In order to exploit the vast landed domain that the monastery owned, there were used the socmen, who were living on the estate. The relations on addressing the services, between them and the monastery, were evidenced by the juridical regulations from the end of the 18th century, and the first half of the 19th century. The socmen were obliged to do the corvee and to sharecrop, as they had been stipulated in Caragea’s Law and the Organic Regulation. The corvee days that they had to do and the crops that they had to share, from each product that they were obtaining, were different from one estate, to the other. For the socmen from the estate of Strehaia, the Organic Regulations did not bring new obligations. They had to work for as many corvee hours as before, as it had been established in Caragea’s Law, and if they could not perform their duties, they had to pay with money (12 thalers). Besides the corvee days, the socmen had to give the monastery a cart of logs. If they did not have the necessary means for transporting the logs, they would have to pay three lei. The socmen from this estate had to share the crops with the monastery, all the products that they had obtained after the cultivation of land. The socmen from Brezniţa-Motru estate had to do the number of corvee days, which had been established in Caragea’s Law and the Organic Regulation. In conclusion, we can assert that, along the entire period of the Organic Regulations, the monastery of Strehaia, for a better exploitation of the vast landed domain that it owned, resorted to the lease-holding system. On these estates, the manpower was provided by socmen, permanently dissatisfied with the severe labour conditions and the taxes that they had to face. Keywords: Strehaia Monastery, the corvee, the estates, Caragea’s Law, Organic Regulation. ∗ Article is part of the theme Of ecclesiastical property field plan in Oltenia. ∗∗ 3rd Degree Scientific Researcher, PhD, “C. S. Nicolăescu Plopşor” Institute for Research in Social Studies and Humanities of the Romanian Academy, Craiova; Email: [email protected] Anuarul Inst. de Cercet. Socio-Umane „C.S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor”, vol. XVI, 2015, pp. 85–92 86 Ileana Cioarec A monastery from the region of Oltenia, founded by the family Craiovescu, who embellished and endowed it with estates, the monastery of Strehaia, represents an important Romanian religious and cultural objective. Since its construction, it received numerous estates from its founders. To these donations, there were also added the buying of other estates, done by the Father Superiors of the monastery, along the time. In order to exploit the vast landed domain that the monastery owned, there were used the socmen, who were living on the estate. The relations on addressing the services, between them and the monastery, were evidenced by the juridical regulations from the end of the 18th century, and the first half of the 19th century. The socmen were obliged to do the corvee and to sharecrop, as they had been stipulated in Caragea’s Law and the Organic Regulation. The corvee days that they had to do and the crops that they had to share, from each product that they were obtaining, were different from one estate, to the other. For the socmen from the estate of Strehaia, the Organic Regulations did not bring new obligations. They had to work for as many corvee hours as before, as it had been established in Caragea’s Law, and if they could not perform their duties, they had to pay with money (12 thalers)1. Besides the corvee days, the socmen had to give the monastery a cart of logs. If they did not have the necessary means for transporting the logs, they would have to pay three lei. The socmen from this estate had to share the crops with the monastery, all the products that they had obtained after the cultivation of land. The exception was the hay, which was shared as money2. The hard working conditions and the increasing demands of Father Superiors of the monastery, determined the socmen to address to the state’s authorities, trying to obtain an improvement in their situation. In 1833, the socmen complained to Pavel Kisseleff, denouncing that Axente, the Father Superior of the monastery, along with Dinu Stolojeanu, and the leaseholder of Strehaia estate, refused to tithe the corn, justifying that its price was very low (5 lei). The unsatisfied villagers were showing that the corn they had obtained remained unharvested, most of the crop being rotten of the field3. Towards the end of 1833, the socmen denounced to the Administration of Mehedinţi County, the abuses they were subjected to, by the Father Superior of Strehaia monastery and the leaseholder of the estate, requesting the sending of a person to recording their claims on the spot4. In January 1834, Chancellor Dincă Stolojanu, the leaseholder of the estate, addressed to the Administration of Mehedinţi County, sustaining that 24 dwellers from the village of Strehaia, in the fall of 1833, destroyed his sowings and broke into his barns, stealing 600 bushels of corn. He asked that the Administration to 1 Mehedinţi County Service of the National Archives (it will be further quoted SJAN Mehedinţi), Prefect’s Office of Mehedinţi County, file 1(1160)/1833, f. 343. 2 Ibidem, file 17(1847)/1831, f. 274-275. 3 C. A. Protopopescu, Strehaia în istorie, Bucharest, Paco Publishing,w.y., p. 262. 4 Ibidem, p. 263. Modalities to Exploit the Estates Owned by Strehaia Monastery 87 designate a representative who would investigate the claims5. The harsh working conditions and the increasing taxes that they had to pay, determined some socmen from Strehaia to run and seek refuge on other estates. In February 1834, Chancellor Dincă Stolojanul asked the Administrator of Mehedinţi County to send gendarmes and beaters, who would bring back on Strehaia estate, five of the families who had fled. Among them, there were: Pătru Viaşu, Vasile Radu Vulturu, Nicolae Cârciumaru, Dumitru, the son-in-law of Grigore and Stan Dincă Buţu6. It was also February 1834, when the leaseholder of the estate addressed again to the Administration of Mehedinţi County, asking to send many “boyars” who would measure the land for farming and grazing, which was supposed to be given to the socmen7. The misunderstandings between socmen and leaseholders continued until 1835. On the 25th of July, Dincă Stolojanu addressed a letter to the deputy- administration of Motru district, asking that the dwellers from the village of Strehaia to be compelled to give compensations to the monastery, because they had been abusively using some orchards and lands of the monastery, for four years, without having any previous arrangement with the Father Superior. He was also mentioning that, although they had warned the socmen not to use them anymore, they refused to subject to the decision8. On the 12th of December 1837, the cupbearer boyar Ioniţă Mavrodin, who had been appointed by the Internal Judicial Office to participate to the measurement of the imparted acres, noticed the Administration of Mehedinţi County that he reached an agreement with the socmen from Strehaia, who accepted to pay additionally for the received land9. On the 22nd of August 1837, the leaseholder of the estate, Dincă Stolojanu, addressed to the Sub-administration of Mehedinţi County, sustaining that, although he had agreed with all the socmen to share the wheat and oat crops, the ones from Huşniţa quarter did not respect the agreement, deciding to give them sheaves10. The flight of the socmen continued to take place, during 1843 too. In the month of September of the same year, unsatisfied with the fact that more and more socmen were leaving the estate, the Father Superior demanded the Sub-administration to send more gendarmes that would bring the fugitives back11. Observing that the state’s authorities did not take any measures in this respect, in October and November 1843, the Father Superior sent two other addresses, soliciting to be sent urgently gendarmes that would bring back the fugitives on the estate of Strehaia, but without an obvious result12. In February 1844, the Father Superior addressed again to the 5 SJAN Mehedinţi, Prefect’s Office of Mehedinţi County, file 91(6382)/1834, f. 7. 6 Ibidem, f. 20. 7 Ibidem, file 27(6306)/1834, f. 2. 8 Ibidem, file 91(6382)/1834, f. 357. 9 Ibidem, file 27(6306)/1834, f. 552. 10 Ibidem, file 91(6382)/1834, f. 1200. 11 C. A. Protopopescu, op. cit., p. 264. 12 Ibidem. 88 Ileana Cioarec authorities, asserting that, using their own resources, they managed to bring back four families, from the ones that had fled: “They were brought out 4-5 guys, but others were not able to bring that I had no help”13. He asked for the estates owners where the fled socmen had settled, to be warned, and to return them to the monastery14. The misunderstandings between the socmen who remained on the estate and the leaseholder Dincă Stolojanu continued in 1844-1845 too. In August 1845, the leaseholder was complaining to the Sub-administration that the villagers from the estate of Strehaia were refusing to sharecrop the corn15.